This month’s legal alert addresses three significant IDEA issues. In Burnette v. San Mateo-Foster City School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals answered whether a child find violation entitles the parents to a remedy when the child is determined not to be eligible, and whether child-identified e-mails that are not part of the child’s file are education records under the IDEA. In M.C. v. Knox County Board of Education (2018), the federal district court in Tennessee answered whether planning time is a “related service” or a “support for school personnel” under the IDEA.
This monthly legal alert addresses Section 504 and IDEA issues, respectively. First is an update of the national and state-by-state percentages of “504-only” students. Second is the summary of a recent federal appellate court decision concerning child find and eligibility IDEA.
This monthly legal alert addresses an IDEA issue and a Section 504 issue. First is the summary of a recent federal appellate court decision concerning the IDEA’s LRE mandate —B.E.L. v. Hawaii (2018). The second is a recently published article reporting the national and state-by-state percentages of “504-only” students.
In my interaction with participants at my various presentations around the country, the request for my Sec. 504 eligibility form has become more and more frequent. The form, which may be customized with due acknowledgment, is attached here for your convenience.
This month’s legal alert summarizes two recent articles, one that is an updated outcomes analysis of the aftermath of Endrew F. upon its first anniversary (“The Aftermath of Endrew F. One Year Later: An Updated Outcomes Analysis”) and the other that is a case law analysis of the obligations to students with disabilities in private schools (“Legal Obligations to Students with Disabilities in Private Schools”).
This monthly legal alert summarizes two recent cases that are officially published federal appeals court decisions. Mr. P. v. West Hartford Board of Education (2018) illustrates various basic issues under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Pollack v. Regional School Unit (2018) identifies a potentially significant additional obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
This month’s legal alert focuses on two recent cases with costly consequences, one arising from a student’s concussion (Lincoln-Sudbury Regional School District v. Mr. and Mrs. W. (2018)), and the other, the failure to have the IEP ready at the start of the school year (School District of Philadelphia v. Kirsch (2018)).